Which courts have heard Katie Johnson’s case and what are the timelines for pending appeals?

1. What courts have the record shown so far — a paper trail

The primary federal docket for the anonymous plaintiff using the pseudonym “Katie Johnson” is recorded as Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump, 5:16‑cv‑00797, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; CourtListener and associated archival mirrors capture that assignment to Judge Dolly M. Gee and docket entries from April–May 2016 ^{[4] [5] [6]}. News outlets and fact checks recount that the anonymous plaintiff also refiled or pursued related filings in New York federal court in 2016 before those matters were dropped, and contemporary reporting treated the California and New York filings as part of the same set of anonymous/“Jane Doe” allegations ^{[2] [3] [7]}.

2. What happened in the trial/district-court stage

Reporting and docket summaries agree the April 2016 federal complaint in California was dismissed in May 2016 for failing to state a federal claim; contemporaneous coverage says the plaintiff’s counsel later filed notices of dismissal and the plaintiff withdrew from an intended press appearance amid reported threats ^{[3] [7] [2]}. Multiple outlets emphasize the case was dropped in November 2016 after refiling activity earlier that year, and the filings were treated as civil allegations that did not proceed to a merits adjudication in the public record covered by these sources ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Appeals and pending timelines — what sources say (and do not say)

Available docket snapshots and news reports in the materials provided do not identify an appeal from the 2016 dismissals advancing to a federal circuit court or the Supreme Court; reporting frames the case as dismissed and not revived in subsequent appellate dockets cited here ^{[4] [3] [7]}. A Substack piece points out that as of November 12, 2025 “no new legal actions have revived the case,” which is consistent with other pieces that note the original filings were dropped and that later public interest was driven by document releases tied to Epstein, not by an active appeals docket ^{[8] [3]}. In short: these sources document district‑court filings and dismissals but do not show a pending appeal timeline to report ^{[4] [5] [3]}.

4. Conflicting narratives and how reporting frames them

Some coverage treats the filing as an unproven allegation that was legally dismissed (Newsweek, PBS, fact checks) and stresses that the record shows no sustained litigation outcome ^{[3] [2] [7]}. Other commentary and local reporting emphasize the existence of court filings and the plaintiff’s later public cautioning about threats, suggesting the case’s withdrawal may reflect fear or intimidation ^{[9] [3]}. The sources disagree implicitly about the weight to give the anonymous claim: mainstream outlets report the dismissal and the lack of adjudication ^{[2] [3]}, while some commentators treat the filing as continuing evidence in public debate about Epstein’s circle ^{[8] [9]}.

5. Limitations, open questions, and what the sources do not say

The assembled sources document district‑court filings, dismissals and news coverage through 2016 and later summaries up to 2025, but they do not provide a public appellate docket showing an active appeal or tell us whether any sealed filings exist beyond what was publicly reported ^{[4] [5] [3]}. Available sources do not mention any specific pending appeals or calendared appellate deadlines tied to Katie Johnson’s filings ^{[4] [3] [8]}. If you need confirmation of appeals activity or sealed materials, that would require direct PACER/Clerk’s Office searches or access to documents not represented in the collection provided here — those steps are not reflected in the current reporting ^{[4] [5]}.

6. Takeaway for readers following timelines

Follow the public dockets: the verifiable record in these sources shows a 2016 federal filing in California (docket 5:16‑cv‑00797) and related New York filings that were dropped; none of the provided materials documents a live appeal or appellate schedule to report ^{[4] [2] [3]}. For readers seeking definitive appellate status, the prudent next step is a direct PACER search of the Central District of California and the relevant federal circuit and district courts, because the sources assembled here stop at reporting and archival docket captures without showing ongoing appeals ^{[4] [5]}.

If you want, I can: (a) pull the publicly available docket text copies captured in the archive links cited here, or (b) outline how to check PACER/clerk records to confirm current appellate status.